(no title)
ggnore7452 | 1 year ago
They're not the silver bullet many initially hoped for, they're not a complete replacement for simpler methods like BM25. They only have very limited "semantic understanding" (and as people throw increasingly large chunks into embedding models, the meanings can get even fuzzier)
Overly high expectations lets people believe that embeddings will retrieve exactly what they mean, and With larger top-k values and LLMs that are exceptionally good at rationalizing responses, it can be difficult to notice mismatches unless you examine the results closely.
deepsquirrelnet|1 year ago
I think sparse retrieval with cross encoders doing reranking is still significantly better than embeddings. Embedding indexes are also difficult to scale since hnsw consumes too much memory above a few million vectors and ivfpq has issues with recall.
nostrebored|1 year ago
kkielhofner|1 year ago
Let's just say that if you think off-the-shelf embedding models are going to work well with this kind of highly specialized content you're going to have a rough time.
[0] - https://huggingface.co/atomic-canyon/fermi-1024
kkielhofner|1 year ago
There are embedding approaches that balance "semantic understanding" with BM25-ish.
They're still pretty obscure outside of the information retrieval space but sparse embeddings[0] are the "most" widely used.
[0] - https://zilliz.com/learn/sparse-and-dense-embeddings